- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:18:43 +0200
- To: SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi, About the action: > ACTION: Alistair to fix wording on skos issues sandbox [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/06/05-swd-minutes.html#action03] I propose the following strategy: 1. When there is an existing requirement corresponding to the issue, we follow the label which was given in the Use case document [1] A typical is ISSUE-37, which I mentioned in my previous mail below (by the way this one was not in the sandbox!) 2. In other situations we are free to change as we want If you agree with that I will change the existing issues, and continue porting the issue sandbox [2] to the issue tracker, as recorded in action > ACTION: Jon and Alistair: Move SKOS issues over from Sandbox to > Tracker on an ongoing basis [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action10] for which I decided to jump in. After my porting Alistair and Jon will be free to change the labels if we are in case 2 OK? Cheers, Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/ [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosIssuesSandbox > > Hi, > > Thank you Tom for the (tedious) work! Indeed you're right, this could > be useful. And there's already a wikipage for it, the candidate > requirement page [1] > I intended to use this page as a kind of requirement post-it, and > still intend to do it. > > I will do the changes (and perhaps also some cleaning in [2] and [3] > that point to it) but it would also be nice if the move from the issue > sandbox to the issue tracker were done, because the candidate > requirement list points to the issues... > > By the way I would add for Alistair and Jon that some of the names for > the issues are really weird, as I already mentioned. There is an issue > called "ISSUE-37: CustomExtensions", [4] the label of which collides > with "R-SkosSpecialization" (which is the good one I think) and > "R-ConceptSchemeExtension". > I really think it would be nice to keep the same labels for > requirements and issues whenever possible. If you find the existing > requirement labels too horrible, just say it, and I will change them, > but keep in mind that homogeneity it quite nice, especially when > external reviewers already complain about the very use of such > requirement/issue labels... > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/CandidateReqList > [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/UCRMaterial > [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS > [4] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/37 >> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 06:20:30PM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote: >> >>> For example [2] should be linked to the corresponding item from the >>> UCR working draft [4] (yes, I've put IDs there!). I think this is >>> very useful when the requirement has already been defined, and has a >>> different name (Alistair actually changed them). I propose just to >>> add the corresponding link in the description of the issue. >>> >> >> Antoine, >> >> Here is the full set of IDs (below). Would it be useful to >> park this list of links somewhere that is easily accessible >> on the wiki, for cutting-and-pasting? >> >> Tom >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-ConceptualRelations >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-ConceptSchemeExtension >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-ConceptualMappingLinks >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-LabelRepresentation >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-MultilingualLexicalInformation >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-SkosSpecialization >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-TextualDescriptionsForConcepts >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-AnnotationOnLabel >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-CompatibilityWithDC >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-CompatibilityWithISO11179 >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-CompatibilityWithISO2788 >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-CompatibilityWithISO5964 >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-CompatibilityWithOWL-DL >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-ConceptCoordination >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-ConceptSchemeContainment >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-ConsistencyChecking >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-GroupingInConceptHierarchies >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-IndexingAndNonIndexingConcepts >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-IndexingRelationship >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-LexicalMappingLinks >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-MappingProvenanceInformation >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-RelationshipsBetweenLabels >> >> >> > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 16:18:46 UTC